Mr. President, I Don’t Want Your Health Care Program!!!

”In 1970 the U.S. spent 7 cents of every gross domestic dollar on health care. Now its 16 cents.”
”An increasing portion of Americans cannot afford or access adequate care. Within 20 years Medicare outlays, left unchecked, will crowd out all other federal budget items except defense. Employee-benefit spending makes U.S. companies uncompetitive in world markets. Almost any city or town would be bankrupt if it put on its balance sheet the commitment to provide health care for retired employees.
”The runaway factor here is the fee-for-service reimbursement system that predominates in private and public insurance plans. … When caregivers make more money by providing more care, supply creates its own demand. Half of all care consumed seems to be driven by physician and hospital supply, not patient need or demand.” (Ref. 1.)

”Absent fundamental reforms, over the next two decades the average American household’s health care spending, including the portion of its taxes that pays for Medicare and Medicaid, will go from 23 percent to 41 percent of average household income. (Ref. 2.)

Lack of Coverage

”ObamaCare is propelled by the oft-repeated Census Bureau statistic that 45.7
million Americans lack health insurance.” (Ref. 3.) Is this true? What
are the realities of this statistic?
Of the reported 45.7 million, 17.5 million “earn more than $50,000 annually. Though
they can afford the coverage, they evidently have other priorities. Of the remaining 28.2 million uninsured,
some 14 million are eligible for, yet have not enrolled in the Medicaid and State Children’s Health Insurance
Programs. Meanwhile 10 million uninsured may be illegal aliens.” The Pacific Research Institute “estimates that
only about 8 million Americans are uninsured due to chronic illness or working-poor status. The latter have
incomes too high for assistance and too low for insurance.
”There is no need for a gargantuan health plan that spends $1.5 trillion, nor the
29 new federal boards, panels and agencies that Senate Democrats envision.”
(Ref. 3.)
“Why not help these 8 million rather than overturn medicine for all 300
million of us?”

It's ObamaCare or No Health Care Reform

Mr. President, stop repeating the lie that only you and your fellow traveler
Democrats are in favor of health care reform! Republicans and nearly all Americans that are opposed to your
health care program want health care reform and have suggested a number of meaningful reforms, e.g., cap
medical malpractice awards, penalize frivolous medical malpractice suits, stop denial of medical insurance
coverage because of pre-existing conditions, make medical insurance transportable, support health care accounts,
etc. Your plan throws out the baby with the bath water. Get with the desires of a majority of Americans -
we don’t need another massive government program and bureaucracy with runaway costs, inefficiencies, and
interference in the lives of citizens and businesses.

Stop Trying to Stampede the American People

Mr. President, stop trying to ram you health care program down the throats of
American citizens! No one yet knows what is in your program. There are reportedly close to 1,000 pages in the
plan that is still being debated in Congress (Ref. 4.) and it
is also reported that nearly 400 amendments have already been filed. It would seem that haste is uncalled for.
Your rush to enactment appears to be solely for the purpose of putting the plan in effect before there can be
any meaningful evaluation of the plan and to avoid having to face criticism for those parts of the program that
are not in the best interests of the majority of Americans. “ … rushing to pass a slapdash package that costs
Americans jobs, widens the budget deficit and still doesn’t achieve its stated goals is destructive.
(Ref. 5.) There are health care reforms that make sense, that are
supported by the majority of Americans. Put these reforms into effect now. Give up your grandiose scheme. Do what
makes sense now and attack the overall problem one battle at a time.

Do We Want (Need) ObamaCare

Do we want the government to design another product that they will make me buy? If
we refuse it, that’s too bad because the government will decide what we want and what we will buy. If we can’t
afford the product, the government will send in investigators to check and if they conclude that we cannot indeed
afford it, they will tax our neighbors and make them subsidize us. More than likely, we will be the ones
subsidizing our neighbors. If big brother discovers that we haven’t purchased the product, they will go to our
employer and garnish our wages. Is that part of the health care program that we want? Do we really want an
all-inclusive government mandated program in which “the government will regulate health care, define acceptable
health insurance and force every American to buy a plan based on the government established standard”? (
Ref. 6.) I think not.

”In town hall meetings across the country, voters have blasted President Obama’s
health overhaul as too expensive, too complicated, and likely to inject the government too deeply into the
nation’s health care system.” (Ref. 7.) The more we get to know
what is in the plan, the more odious it appears. ObamaCare is not only expensive, complicated and intrusive,
it is a blatant attempt to lead America down the discredited road of socialism.

“Our current discussion of healthcare reform can only be characterized as the
product of gross ignorance processed by a mob of imbeciles.”
(Ref. 8.)
“Every day we hear news stories about the need to immediately reform our nation’s
healthcare system, …. The justifications often presented to the public are these: too many people lack health
insurance, healthcare costs are too high, and we spend too much on healthcare.
“But maybe the ‘problem’ is not a lack of health insurance as much as it is a
misunderstanding of what health insurance should be.
“Maybe costs are too high precisely because of the manner in which health
insurance disconnects our healthcare decisions from the costs associated with these decisions.”
(Ref. 8.)
“Is it any wonder that healthcare costs are out of control? It is as if you had
‘grocery insurance’ and whenever you went to the grocery store you just paid a $5 grocery co-pay and then could
load your cart with whatever you wanted. Do you think this might lead to a national ‘grocery cost crisis’ and
would need to have Obama and Congress mandate employer-paid grocery insurance for all?”
(Ref. 8.)

“Imagine if your car insurance covered oil changes and gasoline. You wouldn’t care
how much gas you used, and you wouldn’t care what it cost. Mechanics would sell you $100 oil changes. Prices
would skyrocket. That’s how it works in health care. Patients don’t ask how much a test or treatment will cost.
We ask if our insurance covers it. We don’t compare prices from different doctors and hospitals. Why should we?
We’re not paying. Although we do in hidden indirect ways. {slightly edited by me}
“In the end, we all pay more because no one seems to pay anything. Its why health
insurance is not a good idea for anything but serious illness and accidents that could bankrupt you. For the rest,
we should pay out of our savings”. (Ref. 9.)

“The ObamaCare solution consist of three strategies:
“The first is to have government bureaucrats control payments for healthcare
services …”
“The second is to have the government as the controller and gatekeeper for all
access to healthcare services.
“Finally, Obama wants to pay for all this with taxes - initially from the
wealthiest” few percent of the population,” i.e., rob the rich and give to the poor, “but over time from whomever
he can get it from with the least political fallout.” (Ref. 8.)
“What really needs reform is the current disconnect between a patient’s consumption
decisions and the costs of those decisions. Equally important are the lifestyle decisions and their associated
costs.
“If you have ever tried to determine, in advance, the costs of various treatment
options you know that it is nearly impossible to get the information needed to make a sensible cost/benefit
decision.” (Ref. 8.)
“The lack of cost-conscious consumption (i.e., wasteful consumption) by the
consumer is a cause of even greater waste by the providers because they have little incentive to increase
efficiency. If they reduce costs, they will not be rewarded with extra business, because their customers will
not know or care. But they will be punished by the insurance carriers for their greater efficiencies, since
their payments will be reduced. No good deed ever goes unpunished under socialism!
{Emphasis mine}
“The same perverse incentives are at work when it comes to lifestyle decisions. If
individuals are shielded from the economic costs of irrational, irresponsible and reckless behavior when it comes
to managing their personal health and lifestyle choices, will they be more or less likely to engage in such
behavior? Will they be healthier and need fewer services, or will they be more sickly and be in need of more
services at substantially higher costs?
“What does our current health insurance system do? It shields us from the costs of
health- related services while incentivizing doctors to over medicate and order uneconomic tests (often for legal
protection). The current system takes away one of the key incentives for living a healthy lifestyle and it removes
any incentive to consume medical services in a cost-effective manner. And it provides little incentive for
providers to do so efficiently.” (Ref. 8.)
”Consider for a moment our homeowners insurance. “We all prefer to pay a few hundred
dollars into a pool each year to be protected against those rare but catastrophic events that we diligently try
to avoid. Note that our home insurance premiums are reduced IF we install fire extinguishers, or don’t build in
flood zone, or take other steps to reduce risks.
“So why isn’t it the same for health insurance? Shouldn’t health insurance merely
provide protection against extraordinary risks? And shouldn’t our costs for that protection be a function of our
risks?” (Ref. 8.)
“If we pay for routine medical costs out of pocket, won’t we be much more cost
conscious when we decide to consume medical services? Won’t providers respond by finding innovative ways to reduce
costs to win our business? Won’t we be encouraged to live a healthier lifestyle to reduce those costs further?
Won’t the lower insurance premiums offered for healthier lifestyles encourage us to make better choices?
“Over the years, the government has waded into the healthcare market and has grossly
distorted it.
“Government has destroyed the incentive for consumers to be cost conscious. In the
process, government has destroyed the incentive for providers to improve efficiency.”
(Ref. 8.)
“Government has also dramatically raised the administrative costs of medical care
by burdening even the most mundane event, such as routine checkup, with unnecessary clerical costs … costs that
will go even higher if ObamaCare is enacted.
“All of these distortions of the healthcare market can be fixed with one simple
change: GET GOVERNMENT OUT OF THE HEALTHCARE BUSINESS!
“Eliminate all government regulation of health insurance
(except fraud, of course).
“Let individuals and insurance companies, through the free market, design insurance
policies that reflect the true insurance needs (protection against random, catastrophic events), are price
competitive, and reward healthy lifestyles.
“Free doctors, nurses, hospitals, and other providers to compete for the business of
cost conscious, quality-seeking consumers. Let those who succeed prosper and those that fail go out of
business.
“Never let the government interfere in your lifestyle choices, your healthcare
choices, or your relationship with your doctor or other providers.
”ObamaCare is taking everything that is wrong with government’s meddling in
healthcare and making it worse … much worse. This is not reform. {emphsis mine} It is idiocy
… and it may eventually kill all of us.” (Ref. 8.)

We don’t Want a Socialized Health Care System

”Years ago, Canadians touted their health care system as the best in the world;
today Canadian health care stands in ruinous shape. (The system) is so overburdened that hundreds of thousands in
need of medical attention wait for care, any care; people in towns like Norwalk, Ontario, participate in lotteries
to win appointments with the local family doctor. Canada isn’t the only country facing a government health care
crisis. Britain’s system, once the postwar inspiration for many Western countries, is similarly plagued. Both
countries trail the U.S. in five-year cancer survival rates, transplantation outcomes and other measures.
(Ref. 10.)

The socialized health care system in “Great Britain seem(s) good at making everyday
care conveniently accessible, but budget limitations continue to result in long lines for specialty services and
technologically advanced care. They, too, are turning to private insurance, which offers their citizens greater
choice.” (Ref. 1.)

”Dialysis patients in 2002-04 … had to wait 62 days for access in Canada versus 16
days in the U.S. Waiting lists for elective surgery, such as hip replacement, are notoriously long in other
countries. ‘… waiting for care has economic costs in terms of sick pay and lost productivity, as well as negative
health consequences.’ “ (Ref. 15.)
If American health care is so much worse than in countries with socialized medicine,
why do foreigners who can afford it seek treatment in the U.S. rather than in countries with socialized health
care? Maybe one reason is that when it comes to “effective treatment of major afflictions: The U.S. beats
others hands down. Americans with diseases such as cancer, diabetes and hypertension all have better health care
outcomes than do their counterparts in Europe. ‘U.S. women have a 63% chance of living at least five years after
a cancer diagnosis, compared with 56% for European women. Men in the U.S. have a five-year survival rate of 66%,
compared with 47% for European men,’ “(Ref. 11.)

”Breast cancer kills 25 percent of its U.S. victims. In Great Britain … breast cancer
extinguishes 46 percent of its targets.
”Prostate cancer is fatal to 19 percent of its U.S. patients. … it kills 57 percent
of Britons it strikes.
” … the U.K.’s 2005 heart-attack fatality rate was 19.5 percent higher than
America’s.”
”In 2008, the average Canadian waited 17.3 weeks from the time his general
practitioner referred him to a specialist until he actually received treatment.”
(Ref. 12.) Maybe our health care system isn't so bad after all.
It may need tweaking and reform, but does it need to be thrown out and replaced with a massive social
experiment?

Let’s Reduce Malpractice and Other Legal Costs to the Healthcare System

Clever lawyers have any number of legal procedures in their bag of tricks with which
to extract money from our healthcare system - and all of us pay for this legal extortion with higher healthcare
costs. Malpractice suits are not the only way to suck money out of the healthcare system. In the Fall of 2003,
“as evidence mounted that Vioxx could cause fatal heart attacks, (New Jersey) Local 68 of the International Union
of Operating Engineers … sued the drug’s maker, Merck - for consumer fraud {emphsis mine}
(for some $20 billion in damages). The claim: The Union’s health plan wouldn’t have paid for the drug had it
known the side effects.” (Ref. 13.) Note that the suit was not
for injury to a patient, was not for malpractice and did not claim to be on behalf of an injured party. We need
to stop enriching the legal profession and reduce or eliminate the amount of money we pay for frivolous legal
awards. Let’s put all of our health care money, not just some of it, to work providing better
(and less expensive) health care.

And the beat goes on - and on - and on. “With one ruling this week, the state’s
highest court has put an added burden on doctors that will increase costs even as it strikes at the heart of
doctor-patient relationship.
”A deeply divided Supreme Judicial Court found a doctor could be held liable for
harm done by his patient if the doctor had not adequately warned the patient of his medication’s side
effects.” The case was brought by the parents of a victim struck by a car when the driver, who was being treated
with 8 medications, lost consciousness while driving. (Ref. 14.)
As stated in a dissenting opinion, the majority opinion ‘would interfere with, and
distort the highly personal confidential physician-patient relationship, recognized since the time of Hippocrates
… It would alter a physician’s affirmative duty to care for his patient by introducing a new audience to which
the physician must attend - everyone who might {emphasis mine} come in contact with the
patient.’ The dissenting Chief Justice wrote, ‘The Physician would be forever looking over his shoulder.’
(Ref. 14.)
The dissenting Justices both raised the issue of a potential flood of litigation
that would “increase significantly the costs of health care.” “In the end, not just doctors but all of us will
be paying for that.”(Ref. 14.)

”The U. S. Supreme Court recently rendered a decision that is harshly hostile to
medical innovation …” “The plaintiff alleged that a … drug … was improperly injected, with the result that
{the patient} lost an arm to gangrene. {The patient} understandably sued the hospital - a physician’s assistant
did indeed inject the drug directly into a vein, despite a clear warning on the lable that read:
‘INADVERTENT INTRA-ARTERIAL INJECTION CAN RESULT IN GANGRENE OF THE AFFECTED EXTREMITY.” The patient also sued
the drug company. “After all, why not go after a deeper pocket for some real money?”
{emphsis mine}
The drug maker’s “label had been specifically approved by the FDA.” “ … despite the
warning label and despite the fact that this particular product was inappropriately administered by a third
party,” the court ruled that the drug maker “could still be held liable for harm.” “This will sharply raise
the cost of bringing new medicines to market by substantially increasing the risk of doing so.” Bizarre. And
highly destructive.” (Ref. 15.)

In addition to the cost of malpractice awards, there is the reported much higher
cost of defensive medicine. ”Most costly is the individual doctor’s perceived threat of a career-ending malpractice
award and his or her incentive, therefore to practice defensive medicine.” “A Massachusetts Medical Society study
discovered that in one year Massachusetts wasted $1.4 billion on defensive medicine.” “Another study cited by the
Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons puts the cost of defensive medicine much higher - $100 billion to $178 billion per
year.” (Ref. 16.)

Do We Want to (Can We Afford to) Pay for ObamaCare?

The first estimate of the Senate Finance Committee’s version of ObamaCare came in at a
staggering “$1.6 trillion over 10 years, according to the {nonpartisan} Congressional Budget Office {CBO}.” In fact,
it was so staggering that “the committee immediately set about revising its plan. Included in the CBO report that,
out of the estimated 50 million Americans that are currently uninsured, this $1.6 trillion monstrosity “will still
leave 37 million uninsured.”
Is this $1.6 trillion real? The ABC New research department “found that in 1965 the
estimated cost of the then-new Medicare program was $12 billion for 20 years. The actual cost turned out to be $107
billion.” - a nearly nine-fold increase. (Ref. 17.)

” … major health care reform proposals have generally always cost more - sometimes
significantly more - then the highest cost estimates published while legislation was pending.”
” … in 1965, the House Ways and Means Committee calculated that Part A {of Medicare}
would cost taxpayers $9 billion in 1990. In fact that year’s outlay was $67 billion.
”In 1967, Ways and Means predicted that the entire Medicare program would cost
$12 billion in 1990. Actual cost: $110 billion.” (Ref. 18.)
Based on real life experience, does anyone truly believe that ObamaCare cost could be kept at the already
outrageous $1.6 trillion level?

The CBO estimate fatally exposes the central contradiction of ObamaCare. President
Obama has insisted on the dire need for restructuring the health care system because out-of-control costs were
bankrupting the Treasury and wrecking the U.S. economy - yet the Democrats’ plans would make the problem
worse.” {emphasis mine} (Ref. 19.)

Can we and our children afford a projected $1 trillion (0ver 10 years) health care
program? Are the costs worth the benefits? If the projected 10 year costs are $1 trillion, does anyone doubt
that the real costs will escalate well beyond this estimate? What major government program has not seen real
costs far exceed initial cost estimates. The “Big Dig” in Boston was initially projected to cost $5 billion -
its final cost is on the order of $15 billion.
Massachusetts was the first (and to date, the only) state to mandate a universal
health care program. Massachusetts’ Commonwealth Care, launched in 2006, … was supposed to costs $472 million in
fiscal year 2008. That year’s real tally was $628 million.”
(Ref. 18.)

It was reported in the August 22, 2009 issue of the Boston Globe that Massachusetts
has the highest health care costs in the nation. Is it a coincidence that Massachusetts is the only state in the
nation to currently have a mandatory health care program encompassing all its citizens?

”The Joint Tax Committee reports that the bottom 60% of taxpayers with incomes below
$50,000 paid less than 1% of the federal income tax in 2006, while the 3.3% with incomes above $200,000 paid more
than 58%.
”Mr. Obama has offered no clue as to how he intends to pay for his health-insurance
plans … Although he may hope to collect an even larger share of loot from the top of the heap, the harsh reality
is that this Democratic quest for hundreds of billions more revenue each year would have to reach deep into the
pockets of the people much lower on the economic ladder. Even then, he’d come up short.”
(Ref. 20.)

Whenever then President-elect Obama was “asked how he’ll pay for his ambitious health
care reform plans, he invariably talks about the $80 billion in annual savings he’ll get from bringing computerized
recordkeeping to doctors’ offices and hospitals.
”If only that were true. While there are benefits that might be had from using
computers more widely in medicine, doing so won’t save us any money and, in fact, will likely make things more
expensive.” (Ref. 21.)

” … the heart of the problem is the U.S. fee-for-service system, in which doctors
get paid to do things to people. The more technical and invasive the procedure, the more money they make. Doctors
have responded in the expected Pavlovian manner, collectively shifting away from basic primary care toward
expensive specializations that run up the costs without necessarily improving medical outcomes.”
(Ref. 6.)

Our costs of drugs is another issue. President Obama will have to choose between
more diversity in the number of drugs available or lower drug prices. Under ObamaCare, he has said he wants both,
“but he’s going to get only one or the other - more drugs … or lower drug prices negotiated by the federal
government.”
”Along with many influential Democrats in Congress, the President … also favors
having the federal government ‘negotiate with the drug companies for the cheapest available prices on drugs.’
That means only one thing - weakening the patents involved in the expensive front end of this dance. Placing a
single huge buyer between a patented drug and the disease it treats will indeed lower the cost of treating it -
so long as someone else has already paid to get the drug to market.” It’s been reported that the cost of getting
a new drug to market is some $1 billion.
”The rest of the world counts on the U.S. to be the someone else. New drugs are
introduced here, affluent Americans {and/or their health care insurers} pay premium prices while the patents last,
and less affluent Americans, along with the rest of the developed world, get a sharply discounted ride on their
coattals. While the patent lasts, however, some of the free riders don’t get the drug at all. The 6,000 British
victims of kidney cancer don’t get Pfizer’s Sutent, because the government sets a $23,000 cap on what it will pay
for a drug expected to prolong life by six months. Most other countries are openly or tacitly doing the same.
The {Obama administration} wants {that} to happen {here} on the double.” When we import drugs more cheaply than
we can buy them here in the U.S., are we simply getting the drugs at a lower cost or are we also causing drug
companies to cut back on the expensive process of developing new drugs because they won’t be able to recoup their
development costs? “Once the U.S. joins the big-government buyer’s club, … (m)any smaller-market drugs will never
make it through the economic gate at all.
”It is dreadfully ironic that affluent countries have chosen this moment to throttle
the {new drug development} research engine.” (Ref. 22.)

”ObamaCare promises to pay for itself. It can’t possibly - if Democrats come through
with all the side deals they’ve made in order to get a reform bill . . While the President hit the road to drum up
public support for his plans, the White House and Capitol and Dems have been serving up closed-door promises to
keep various groups happy.
”All the key groups have been bought off” reports Health Policy & Strategy Associates
of Alexandria, VA. “Worse, he says, it’s undermining potential cost savings - perhaps preventing a new system that
would pay for itself.” (Ref. 23.) Among the groups reportedly being
bought off are: doctors (through the American Medial Association), old people (through the American Association of
Retired Persons), hospitals (through the American Hospital Association), private insurers, Conservative Democrats,
and the middle class.
”Contentious as reform has become, the Administration is pushing hard for passage
of a bill. With all the requisite giveaways, what will it look like - and how will we be able to afford it?”
(Ref. 23.)

Instead of ObamaCare, Let’s have Real Health Care Reform

”Mr. President, “… if we want cheaper and more creatively delivered health care we
need less, not more government.” In 1960, about 50% of health care expenditures were directly controlled by
consumers. Today it’s about 15%. “Over the same period in which consumers have relinquished control, per capita
health care spending has quintupled.” (Ref. 6.)

Mr President, let’s put the ObamaCare healthcare proposal away and instead focus
on making meaningful and realistic changes to the underlying causes of our current health care system problems.
“Because of government intervention in the marketplace, there’s a vast gap between the demand for health care and
its supply.

“Increasing government intervention only exacerbates the gap: Prices rise,
supplies shrink further and eventually government is forced to close the gap by restricting demand through
rationing.” {emphasis mine} (Ref. 24.)

”Our health care ills are symptomatic of our social ills. And our social ills
reflect a society where the link between personal responsibility and costs and personal rights and benefits has
been largely severed.”(Ref. 6.) Simply stated, ObamaCare will, at
best, perpetuate these disconnects and, more likely increase them, as does all socialistic actions.
”More individual freedom, choice, and responsibility in both the delivery and
purchase of health care is our only hope.” (Ref. 5.)

”The problem with health care … is the disconnect between providers and consumers -
that is, our third party payment systems. … The current system hurts productivity; it is geared toward a cost-plus
way of doing things that is hostile to new ways of doing things.
”Remove barriers to Health Savings Accounts and to people buying health insurance
across state lines … and {provide} refundable tax credit(s) that would give more power to individuals and less
to employers.”(Ref. 25.)

”The problem with health care is that patients don’t control the resources - third
parties do. Thus, there is no marketplace pressure for productivity or innovative ways of improving delivery. In
those areas in which the patients write the checks for medical care, productivity proliferates. Cosmetic surgery
is a prime example. Unless the need for a procedure is a result of a disease or an accident, such procedures are
paid for by the patient, not an insurer. ‘The real price of cosmetic surgery has declined over the past 15 years,
despite substantial technological progress and a sixfold increase in demand.’”
(Ref. 26.)
Mr. President, a major step toward meaningful health care reform would be to move
away from socialistic concepts and back to the capitalistic notion of having each individual responsible for his
actions and allowing the individual the right and obligation to make his own decisions about his health care options.
More of big brother is not the real solution. Get the government and its bureaucrats less, not more, involved in
our health care decisions. “Health Savings Accounts, properly implemented, would go a long way toward bringing
about an entrepreneurial revolution in health care, one in which Americans would get more and better medicines
for less.”(Ref. 26.)

Republicans have proposed a Patients’ Choice Act that reflects the thinking that
“health care costs are out of control, and as a result, not affordable for many, because of too much government.
It {the Patients’ Choice Act} allows Americans to take direct control of their health care expenditures by giving
families and individuals cash in the form of a tax credit ($5,700 and $2,300 respectively) to buy insurance and to
set up a Health Savings Account.”
Democrats {and President Obama} … take things in the opposite direction. Rather than
controlling costs and access through more competition and consumer control, they see it coming from more government
and {more} regulation.” They prefer “mandates on employers to provide insurance, fines if they don’t, and using
those funds to finance a new subsidized government plan.
”And central to cost control are {more} government bureaucrats defining what
procedures may be used and determining what physicians will be compensated.”
Medicaid already works this way. Under Medicaid, “bureaucrats define what is
covered and how much physicians will be paid.” “On average, 40 percent of physicians won’t accept Medicaid
patients. They are paid less than what it costs them to provide the care.” Is it a coincidence that a recent
study has shown that “Medicaid patients (are) 50 percent more likely to die after heart surgery than patients
with private coverage or Medicare”?
”Move the whole nation onto a new government health care plantation?
”No thanks. I’ll take freedom and personal responsibility.”
(Ref. 17.)

”Private-sector competition produces efficiencies that government can seldom keep up
with. As Democrats scamper to reduce the projected costs of health care, the rest of us might want to keep that in
mind.” (Ref. 27.)

”Let every American own and control an individual insurance policy that can be
transported among jobs, self-employment, graduate school, and life’s other twists and turns.” What Americans
need is a thriving market in individually owned and controlled health insurance plans.
”Health care reform should give Americans the option of using money tax-free
to purchase whatever kinds of health insurance make them happy. If employers offer such plans, lovely. If not,
individuals should be encouraged, through tax-free Health Savings Accounts, to buy and maintain their own
policies.” (Ref. 3.)